3 ms·
These 'security holes' are not typically security holes which let people do things with the device without authorisation from the device's owner; instead, they
by A1kmm 16y ago
These 'security holes' are not typically security holes which let people do things with the device without authorisation from the device's owner; instead, they prevent authorised people (by the person with legal authority over the device, i.e. the owner) from doing things, so are better termed a deficiency in an anti-feature rather than a security hole.
Fixing the holes in the anti-features may be in the interests of Apple if it lets them get a better deal with mobile networks, but it isn't in the interests of device owners.
- irons 16y agoThese 'security holes' are not typically security holes which let people do things with the device without authorisation from the device's owner; instead, they prevent authorised people… from doing things The exploits used to allow authorized people to "do things" are the same exploits that can be used to allow unauthorized people to "do things". There's no differentiation at all, except the intent of the person writing the exploit payload. You might argue that Apple should give jailbreakers everything they want, but Apple won't do that. You can't seriously argue that Apple should hold off on patching security holes because they're being used today by nice people.